Jeb Bush Runs For President – Clinton Bush Clinton Bush

On the one hand, wasn’t Obama supposed to end the Clinton Bush Clinton Bush cycle? We mocked that idea in March of last year and concluded that Obama is not the “transformational world historical figure” he hallucinates himself to be. On the other hand, another Bush running for president? Ugh! We must be as disgusted with this news as Republicans who can’t stand the idea of a certain woman running.

Unlike Hillary, it is smart of Jeb to announce this early. Hillary should wait as long as possible (if she runs at all) to announce because the longer she waits the clearer the Republican field becomes and the more it makes Obama Dimocrats squirm.

For Hillary the landscape is rather stable. Joe Biden is running for president, but he is a joke. How do we know Joe Biden is running for president? First, every time in the past we have met with a Biden staff member all they do is try to recruit you to join Team Biden. Biden and his staff stoke the presidential fires every election cycle so yeah, Joe Biden is running.

Second, see for yourself that Joe Biden is running for president. Joe Biden is running for president and the proof is all the plastic surgery the veep has undergone. Watch Uncle Joe on TV. His eyes have gotten so much attention and tightening from the surgeons that Joe appears to have permanent squinty eyes in the shape associated with the Chinese or Japanese. But it does not matter. Joe is a joke and the only one not in on the joke is Joe.

For Hillary the question is Warren. Will Warren run? There are a lot of establishment Obama Dimocrats pushing for Warren to say yes. What Warren, or DeBlasio, or Jerry Brown, or any of the assorted Kooks in the rancid box would like is for Hillary to announce, wait to see the reaction, then jump in and bring Hillary down.

For Jeb Bush the opposite is true. There are a lot of Republicans running for president. We pretty much know who they are. Even the potential outliers (Mike Pence) are known. For Jeb the need is to cut the oxygen from the opposition. The sooner Jeb financially asphyxiates potential candidates the better for him.

As much as we might be sickened by this news and as little as we like Jeb we admit that he is an extremely formidable candidate. His pluses? He’s from Florida, his wife is Latina, he speaks Spanish around the house so he is very Spanish fluent (unlike that boob Barack who pretended to be so smart but his claims to Spanish ability are restricted to recognizing items on the Taco Bell menu), the business establishment loves him, he’ll have tons of money, he’ll have tons of the best operatives in the political world, his dad and brother have been president so he has experience in national campaigns, his son just got elected to statewide office in Texas (a counter along with W. to Perry and Cruz for Texas support), he has executive experience as a very successful Florida governor, he is viewed as sane, he is not afraid to take on the conservative wing of the Republican Party, he can credibly claim to be able to attract Latino/a support, he looks “presidential”, his family is reconciled to a run, his dad and to some extent his brother are highly regarded, and for a long time he has been considered a high probability “winner”.

Jeb Bush, like him or not, is formidable. It is very possible that today’s announcement pretty much ends the Romney return, the Christie bounce back, the Rubio resurgence, and any and all middle of the road Republican candidates such as Paul Ryan and Mike Pence. Or maybe not. But certainly any Republican “moderate” has to at the very least reassess.

Jeb Bush is formidable but has some real weaknesses. He’s a Bush in a country that might have Bush fatigue. He is a strong advocate for Common Core. He is a big “immigration reform” amnesty guy. He’s viewed with the same type of loathing from conservatives that Hillary gets from skunk eye leftist totalitarian kooks. Jeb is a “centrist” in a party that wants Tea.

Jeb Bush has a very good chance to win the nomination if the moderates like Christie and Romney, who also have executive experience, stay out once Chamber of Commerce money people nudge them off the road. Once Bush has the middle to himself all he has is a divided conservative opposition.

Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum (ha!), and Mike Huckabee, will stay in the race to divide up the conservative vote and help Jeb Bush. Rick Perry? We would bet that Perry just got squashed by Jeb.

The only one that is a question mark to us is Scott Walker. Can a mild mannered Wisconsin governor take on a former Florida governor who is a Bush and win? It’s not likely but we would not count Walker out, yet.

A Jeb Bush candidacy means the Republicans might have a candidate sooner rather than later – and one who will be flush with cash, who will redraw the competitive map, and will get Latino votes.

Hillary? What does Hillary think about this? For one thing the Obama Dimocrats need Hillary now more than ever.

Like many of you, our family was blessed with the opportunity to gather together over the recent Thanksgiving holiday.

Columba and I are so proud of the wonderful adults our children have become, and we loved spending time with our three precious grandchildren.

We shared good food and watched a whole lotof football.

We also talked about the future of our nation. As a result of these conversations and thoughtful consideration of the kind of strong leadership I think America needs, I have decided to actively explore the possibility of running for President of the United States.

In January, I also plan to establish a Leadership PAC that will help me facilitate conversations with citizens across America to discuss the most critical challenges facing our exceptional nation. The PAC’s purpose will be to support leaders, ideas and policies that will expand opportunity and prosperity for all Americans.

In the coming months, I hope to visit with many of you and have a conversation about restoring the promise of America.

Best wishes to you and your families for a happy holiday season. I’ll be in touch soon.

Ernst Blofeld: Siamese fighting fish, fascinating creatures. Brave but of the whole stupid. Yes they’re stupid. Except for the occasional one such as we have here who lets the other two fight. While he waits. Waits until the survivor is so exhausted that he cannot defend himself, and then like SPECTRE… he strikes!

At this point, I think that is the most likely scenario. I do know, and I have said this here nearly a dozen times that Hillary should wait this thing out, until their party comes begging. I think the emergence of Bush as a candidate of the other party is a catalyst, because it forces those in her own party who hope to maintain power, but are personally invested in the pipe dream of Obama to either confront reality, or become marginalized. After all, Bush comes to the party with a name, a war chest, a governorship, and a family name that wins elections. But the watchword has to be this: wait, the situation on your side is stable, you have captured the financing, and you can cut a more favorable deal with the progressives, if the mighty Obama continues his current slide into irrelevancy before you step in. If you step in too early, he will drag you down. You have enough to answer for without adding that to the list of things the other side can attack you on. The more obvious the Bush juggarnut becomes, the more it becomes an easy comparison between the state of the nation when Bill left office, i.e. a budget surplus vs. how it was when W left office. This will greatly disappoint some people, like my doctor who is a fourth generation physician and a very ethical man who is distressed that for more than a generation our politics should come down to a battle royal between two dynasties, but for the mass man who is easily seduced or for the so called journalist who is trying to decide who he needs to please and what lie he needs to tell to do that kiss–keep it simple.

those in the other party hoping to cling to power, and more important their donors who depend upon their presence to continue their looting, since, with rare exception most of them are like the RINOs in the sense that they are bag men who stand for nothing except a permanent lease on power and servicing their donors as prostitutes would.

I think admin is probably correct that Scott Walker is the biggest beneficiary of an early Jeb candidacy. It freezes out most of the other “establishment” candidates, especially Christie and Rubio and Romney.

It pretty much guarantees that the primaries will distill to a Bush vs Anybody-but-Bush contest. If it looks like the base will take Jeb down in flames, the money men will be looking for the most centrist candidate the kooks will support. Bush in the race means the kooks will support a more centrist candidate just because he’s anybody-but-Bush. Walker looks well positioned.

It has a long-shot chance of helping Rand Paul, in case the kooks really do control the primaries. To his credit, Paul has worked very hard to make himself palatable to the money men — unlike Ted Cruz, who keeps blasting away at his own feet with pistol-fire.

Two issues here. One: Does Obama enjoy more power to craft policy if Congress is deadlocked between the two parties? Ezra Klein says yes, I say no. Two: How far can Obama go in crafting policy in the name of “prosecutorial discretion”? No one disputes that he can prioritize one illegal immigrant’s deportation case over another’s. If he can do that for one person, why can’t he do it systematically for five million? At what point does “prosecutorial discretion” become unconstitutional legislation by presidential diktat?

Judge Arthur Schwab’s arguments will sound familiar, up to and including the hypothetical he offers on income tax rates. Skip to page 18 of the opinion for the section on constitutionality. Here’s the key bit on presidential power:

That last part could be key if this case drifts upward to SCOTUS and, as everyone expects, Boehner and McConnell cave on funding executive amnesty in the meantime. It’s correct, too: The point of separation of powers isn’t to protect each branch from the others, it’s to protect the citizen from government writ large by pitting the branches against each other instead of against the individual (in theory). The fact that Congress might acquiesce in Obama’s power grab on immigration thus shouldn’t spare O from judicial scrutiny since, after all, it’s the public that’s ultimately wronged by it — especially American workers — not Congress. If you want to argue a la Ezra that one branch’s power increases as another grows more impotent, I’d argue that the more executive power increases at the expense of the legislature, logically the more eager the judiciary should be to scrutinize the executive. That’s basic checks and balances — if Congress can’t check the executive, the courts should, something worth bearing in mind when standing inevitably becomes an issue in all this. Should a member of the public have standing to sue O for violating separation of powers even if he/she can’t show a concrete injury from O’s new policy? What would a robust checks-and-balances framework suggest?

As for the second issue, the point when “prosecutorial discretion” becomes legislation, Schwab’s ready for that too:

pd

Is it true that “systematic” guidelines for implementing executive amnesty magically transform O’s action from prosecutorial discretion into unconstitutional legislation? Over at Reason, Ilya Somin says no; if the point of discretion is to let the executive prioritize among pending cases, why should we care if he issues guidelines to help immigration bureaucrats do that? Prioritizing without guidelines would itself lead to arbitrary, inconsistent policy. The flip side of that, though, is that there’s no obvious limiting principle to Obama’s “discretionary” power grabs so long as he’s acting to liberalize the law (a la suspending the employer mandate) rather than applying it, in Somin’s words, to “harass” people. In theory, Obama could refuse to enforce federal law altogether, a fine libertarian outcome but one most people would find inconsistent with his duty to faithfully execute the laws. The question is this: Whom would you rather see punish O for that, the courts or the voters? In theory, there’s already a check on the president in all this — voters can simply express their disgust by refusing to vote for him or his party’s successor next time around. But that means, without a judicial or legislative counter, we’ll have to endure this power grab for two more years with no remedy. Is that tolerable?

Assuming SCOTUS takes this case eventually, I think the discretion/legislation point will end up being decided along vague prudential lines — i.e. the president can use his discretion in individual cases and in classes of cases but not in lots of cases, whatever “lots” ends up meaning. Exit question: Does the GOP Senate’s takeover make it less likely that the Supreme Court will agree to hear this case? After all, it’s not really true that Congress “can’t check the executive,” as I said above. They can by impeaching him or by cutting off funding; if it turns out that Boehner and McConnell don’t have the votes for that, well, that’s just democracy in action. Obviously the public’s trending their way in replacing congressional Democrats with Republicans. Why should the Supremes step in and punish Obama when voters can do it in 2016?

It pretty much guarantees that the primaries will distill to a Bush vs Anybody-but-Bush contest. If it looks like the base will take Jeb down in flames, the money men will be looking for the most centrist candidate the kooks will support. Bush in the race means the kooks will support a more centrist candidate just because he’s anybody-but-Bush. Walker looks well positioned.

———-
The default position will be Romney. The problem is the dirty tricks campaign of the Bush family. Once that factor is removed I think Romney will be the beneficiary. Like I said last night, a lot of people I have spoken to have buyers regret (and acid reflux) over ever having been so stupid as to have ever voted for the fraud. It calls into question their judgment. One of them is a big time bond trader for Russell whose firm’s portfolio is around a trillion. How would like to rely on his judgement in assessing how to position your money if he is easily bamboozled. He is sensitive about that. And he should be.

Bottom line: I believe Hillary can beat Bush because the base is tired of being kicked around and they are expecially tired of putting their trust in Quislings. On the other hand, I do not think Hillary can beat Romney. By the way, this is an assessment not a statement of how I would vote. The way things are trending I may not bother because there is nothing in it for the American People. From election fraud, to race card, to blind attacks on the Tea Party, to increased surveillance, to the loss of a free press, to increasing the gate to participate in the political process to 1.6 billion, to the Ivy League protection network it is clear to me and to anyone who has the capacity to think that the only transformation which is taking place today is from democracy to oligarchy. The rest of it is just personalities, and, frankly, pure unadulterated bullshit.

Yes, Sheldon Wolin told me this with his managed democracy and inverted totalitarianism several years ago, and I reported it here. But it is one thing to know it, and another to see it happening before your eyes by Quislings who promise to protect the Constitution and then when you give them power they trash it for their own self enrichment–these bag men for their donors.

Mike Walsh @ PJMedia is just as thrilled with the idea of candidate Jebediah Bush as I am. Only in my case, I cannot eat, I cannot sleep and I cannot think—about anything by Mr. Charismatic. Obviously, the hour of our redemption is at hand. Or else three generations of idiots is enough. Here’s Mike’s take on this riveting development:

“Just what America needs: three presidents in one family, and the prospect of another Bush/Clinton election. A total disgrace to the American ideal. Jeb and the rest of the clan should reconsider before he embarrasses himself further.”

The Bush offsprings are all idiots. Jeb is just a little more discreet about it than George Dubya. They all take their directions from Daddy. Their heritage is tainted and they have played a role in the downfall of a great country.

Thank you foxyladi 14 and happy Chanukah to all my Jewish friends ( I don’t have too many left since most of my ex friends voted not once, but twice for Israel hater Obama).
———————————————-
I think Jeb will be a very formidable candidate and agree the dems might rally around Hillary as Jeb would trounce Biden and Warren. I think , however, even Hillary would face a tough general election against Jeb. Jeb’s family issues that we saw down here during and after his Governoship seem to have dissipated over the years. He is smart and somewhat likeable .

How did Obama get the then UN Secretary Susan Rice to go on five networks and blame Benghazi on a video, when she had contrary evidence from the CIA? In other words, how did they get her to lie.

There was the reported fact that she did not like New York, which is the site of the United Nations. Wanted to get back to Washington. So they promised her the current job, as an inducement to walk the gauntlet.

There was a second reason however which was not reported. I knew that she and her husband had a net worth of roughly 30 million by I had no idea how they made that fortune. Apparently, it was from gunrunning in Africa. Some of this helped kill her nomination to be Secretary of State.

“The New York Times ran an article revealing that UN officials believe Rice is trying to shield the Rwandan government, and its president, Paul Kagame, from international censure, for their support of rebel groups precipitating “atrocities and brutal killings” in the Congo. The Washington Free Beacon reported that financial disclosure forms showed Rice had hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in several energy companies known for doing business with Iran. Breitbart News ran a column entitled “Top Ten Reasons to Oppose Susan Rice,” detailing a pattern of dubious behavior and lying going as far back as the Clinton administration. Highlights include Rice urging the administration not to call the Rwandan massacres genocide, fearful of the political impact on U.S. congressional elections in 1994; her efforts to block cooperation with the Sudanese government, even as they had offered to hand over Osama Bin Laden; her role at the UN, marked by chronic absenteeism and criticism of Israel; and, finally, her role in the Benghazi disinformation campaign. http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/obama-concedes-defeat-on-susan-rice/

The way to move a mule is with a stick at his rear and a carrot in front of him. That is how they got Rice to come forward and function as the front man on the campaign of disinformation with respect to Benghazi.

Admin, noticed an article at The Hill earlier today that also described Hillary as “quiet” . Of course it would not have been complete without a nod to Warren. Title: “Hillary quiet while Warren rises”.

The dramatic fall in oil prices is not the result of mere market pressures. A market phenomena of falling prices would be triggered by a major surge in production and/or an equally large drop in demand. Something else is afoot.

It appears that Obama’s team cut a deal with the Saudis. A very short sighted deal. Goal? Produce enough oil to cause a drop in prices that would put pressure on both Iran and Russia. That was the plan.

OOPS!!!

the U.S. government basically began saying that eight months ago, when it joined with other Western nations in imposing a series of economic sanctions on Putin’s Russia.

The sanctions hurt Russia a bit, but now oil’s freefall is causing the ruble to crash and slamming that nation with a guaranteed recession or even depression.

This would be something worthy of extreme vigilance for the U.S. government and investors alike even if Russia were a true democracy governed by at least semi-responsible leaders.

But it’s worse. Much worse.

How bad? Nobody really knows at this juncture how many banks and oil drilling companies are exposed to debt loads they now cannot service. This has the potential to be like 2008 all over again. Only one little twist. Russia will have a legitimate case to blame the United States for crashing its economy. You think Russia is going to bend over and take it up the ass?

Pop over to Pat Lang’s blog and read the piece regarding the law, HR5859, that Obama signed today.

Think again. We are entering very dangerous waters in a sail boat and we have a guy at the helm that does not know port from stern.

Many of us have followed Krauthammer for years. But in the last analysis he is a Beltway fixture, and he sees the entire political process through those eyes. Ditto the dreary George Will.

Thus, is understandable that they would criticize Cruz for not being a team player. Politics they say is a team sport. Just look at Kathleen Sebelius, a loyal, dutiful company man and kiss ass who sacrificed her own legacy for Obama. And, while Obama may be better off for her sacrifice, viz. she shielded him, the same cannot be said for the nation.

And that is the rub: Cruz, Lee and Sessions will seem like renegades to a Washington insider. They are the canary in the cave that the Beltway establishment does not want to hear. But the real offense is that those leaders exposed the complete hypocrisy of the Republican leadership, who promised voters they would fight amnesty before the election and then caved.

Now, of course, the RINO leadership is accusing those senators of gumming up the legislation, violating the rules of Washington and helping Harry Reid cede the courts with 88 left wing ideologues. Closer scrutiny shows that this is all a lie, that Cruz et al are following parliamentary procedure, and Reid has the majority and was poised to push these ideologues through regardless.

The point is Washington just fine for beltway insiders, who have grown rich and unresponsive to the people. Cruz, Lee and Sessions do not wish to play by such a one sided–heads I win tails you lose sort of rules. They want to change the rules. Thus, it is hardly surprising that the establishment would throw rocks and them and release the hounds of hell in big media, who likewise profit handsomely from the status quo, and see the nation as just a bunch of Archie and Edith Bunkers.

The end of the Golden Age produced a small group of plutocrats and a sinking middle class, who were mostly farmers and tradesmen in those days. And Judge Learned Hand, one of our great jurists of mid century America was barely out of Harvard Law School and got caught up in a reform movment which is a distant mirror of what we see today—TR and the Bull Moose Party.

And the slogan of that party, which he and his fellow wiffenpoofs from Harvard recited were these, from the poet Goldsmith:

Ill fares the land
To hastening ills aprey
Where wealth accumulates
And men decay

Here is Cruz’s answer to his critics, which rings true and adorable, to my political sensibilities:

And the headline we knew would emerge. Wiggy just may get jiggly with this prez thing after all. I guess the charms of the kooks and other infantile, whining, Hillary haters were just too hard to resist.

This is the best political interview I have ever seen because it explains through a VERY tight Q & A (question and answer format) how things work in Washington, who the winners and losers are and what some leaders who believe in the Constitution, and believe their proper role is to represent the voters who sent them there, are trying to do about. Nothing paints in bolder colors the fact that politics is Washington vs. the American People, plus the deception and lies run by the political class through big media to hide the truth and no less the consequences of what is going on from the American People. A 16 minute seminar. Brilliant.

Voters are sharply divided about a Hillary Clinton run for the White House, although she still has sizable advantages over other potential Democratic and Republican candidates, a new polls shows.

Fifty percent of those surveyed said they could support Clinton, while 48 percent said they’d oppose her potential presidential bid, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Wednesday.

Clinton’s tenure with the Obama administration could also work against her, as 71 percent said they want the next president to take a different approach than the current occupant of the White House. Showing further voter fatigue, 40 percent said they want to see a Republican elected, whereas 38 percent prefer a Democrat.

In one swift move, Jeb Bush showed his fundraising prowess without raising a dollar.

A number of top tier donors reacted to the Republican’s announcement on Facebook that he would “actively explore the possibility” of running for president with genuine enthusiasm — and even relief.

Some of the GOP’s top donors and operatives have been pushing Bush to get into the race, or were holding their breath and hoping he would — and they interpreted his Facebook post on Tuesday as a signal that all systems were a go. It amounted to an instant impediment for possible rivals like Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, whose chances of amassing a national fundraising network necessary to mount a credible campaign just dimmed. [snip]

Others said it’s bad news for the rest of the Republican field.

“Rubio will be impacted more than anybody else, because they both come out of the same city and the same donor pool, at least in Florida, and Jeb has got a little bit further reach around the country,” said Mel Sembler, a Florida mall developer and top fundraiser for George W. Bush. “If I had to speculate, I bet he runs for reelection to the Senate and not for president.” [snip]

Bush is also looking to lock up top GOP talent and fill senior slots. Heather Larrison, who served as finance director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee for the 2014 cycle, is working with Bush on a “volunteer basis,” his spokeswoman Kristy Campbell confirmed.

Bush’s move toward the race could pose the most serious problems for a trio of prospective rivals who have assiduously courted major establishment donors — Christie, Perry and Rubio.

It also throws cold water on the continued discussion that Republicans could draft Mitt Romney to make a third run for the White House. In recent weeks Bush world had grown upset over the continued Romney talk. He was freezing out donors, according to Bush allies. Campbell said Bush himself never authorized any talk about Romney.

And a Bloomberg Politics story from last week that detailed Bush’s business dealings was emailed around by a number of Romney supporters, according to people who received the missives.

Many of Rubio’s major home state donors initially warmed to him because of Bush, who was something of a mentor to Rubio. Some of them could remain on the sidelines until Bush formally enters the race, acknowledged a major GOP bundler who has pledged to support Rubio.

But the bundler asserted “the overlap in Florida is relatively small.” During Rubio’s 2010 Senate race, “Marco did not run with the traditional Florida GOP fundraisers until the general,” said the bundler, who is set to attend a gathering of about 100 top Rubio donors and bundlers next month at Delano Hotel on South Beach to discuss Rubio’s political future.

Rubio spokesman Alex Conant said Rubio’s decision to run for president won’t be based by any other 2016 candidate.

“Marco has a lot of respect for Governor Bush, and believes he would be a formidable candidate,” Conant said in a statement. “However, Marco’s decision on whether to run for President or re-election will be based on where he can best achieve his agenda to restore the American Dream — not on who else might be running.”

Christie’s ties to the wealthy finance types who urged him to run in 2012 are rivaled by those maintained by the Bush family. And the Bushes have even deeper roots in super-affluent Texas Republican circles than Perry, despite his three terms as governor. Perry’s predecessor in the statehouse, former President George W. Bush, has lobbied major Texas donors on his brother’s behalf, sources said.

Most donors with ties to Perry and the Bushes will end up siding with the latter if both run, said Sembler, who was a top fundraiser and U.S. ambassador for both presidents Bush. “The Bush name and the Bush experience will prevail,” he said this month. “They’ve got a great donor network.”

Several Bush supporters described his latest moves — delivering a commencement speech in the early primary state of South Carolina — as part of trying to increase enthusiasm for his presidential bid.

“It is a temperature-taking exercise right now,” said Tony Fratto, a Republican operative who supports a Bush 2016 bid. “They are going to find a lot of enthusiasm and a lot of people willing to step up and want to be supportive.”

He added: “I think Jeb would have a pool of backers that is much broader than who was supporting and even who was supporting President Bush the last time around.”

Other Jeb Bush supporters agreed.

“I think that it keeps people excited that Jeb is going to run and that people won’t start supporting other candidates until he comes out,” said Ashley Davis, an alumna of the George H.W. Bosh administration and a Jeb Bush supporter.

A future of 4-8 years of another Bush may lead many Americans to conclude that catching Ebola might not be so bad after all.

If the Dims run Warren, regardless of whether the Republicans run Mitt, Jeb, or any other candidate who the far right opposes, the conservatives who stayed home in droves in 2008 and 2012 when McCain and Mitt were running, will not do so in 2016. They’ll bust hell wide open to get to the polls to vote against Warren. Not only is she too much like O – too progressive, she’s a woman. The far right will have two reasons to overcome their hatred of moderate Republicans and vote for a candidate they consider too liberal,: 1) Warren is too much like Obama – too liberal. They’re scared of what another far lefty will do, after two terms of watching O damage the country. 2) Warren’s gender will be a turn off for wing nuts.

Dims may be able to force the party to give her the nomination – just as Pelosi, The chauffeur, Daschel, Kerry, and Dean did with Obama in 2008. But Wig Wam will never make it to the WH – even if the Dims find a way to let every illegal given amnesty by O the right to vote.

But would that really matter to the kooks and their ilk? I don’t think so. I think they would trade a Dim shot at the WH for the opportunity to defeat Hillary should she run for the nomination. They are some sick little Indian braves. Sick with CDS.

From Hillary’s perspective this is the best possible development. If blunts the change mantra, equalizes the wage factor, and neutralizes her unfortunate relationships with Wall Street money men. From the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War up to and including now, the Bush family has had such a close, intimate and enduring relationship with Wall Street that for all intents and purposes it is the face of Wall Street. He will be taken down in the primary. He will be taken down in the primary and when that happens his money men will switch their allegiances to Hillary, rather than deal with a conservative candidate who seeks to reduce the power of Wall Street over the American People.

So Obama has lifted most of the restrictions against Cuba, and wait, he got little for it…
Surprise…worst negotiator EVER…
Well I think the Cubans have been leaning Democrat for some time vs straight, Republican.

Well, no surprise here. This article from The Atlantic (AKA: “The Hillary sucks, Obama’s great, and did we say Hillary Sucks Magazine”) claims that Wig Wam is the new ONE. The author says because of Warren’s populist, anti-Wall Street meme, she would appeal to Republicans. Furthermore, the White working-class voters who have switched from Dim to Pub will support her in droves, giving her an even greater chance at winning the General Election.

So basically, there’s nothing to see here, folks. Just move along. Its just one more group of limo-libs trying to throw Hillary under the bus again, and put Wiggy into the driver’s seat. Big Whoop. We’ve seen it and heard it all before.

As much as I hate The Nation, I’m giving myself a medal for reading this article there. The author described the destruction that O has wright upon the party. That’s right – the party. The author argues that O has done the right thing in granting Amnesty to illegals, and with his other policy initiatives, as well. The problem that is his policies are not popular Dim voters, and the party is chaos.

Looks like the thrill is kinda waning at The Nation. They are not screaming and fainting from the sheer joy of hearing Barack’s name as they once were. But, they still think he’s pretty great. The Nation needs to go through a course of Hopium addiction treatment. Or maybe once they really start guzzling Warren’s fire-water, they’ll just be able to put down the hopium pipe.

Here comes the emptying of the prisons and mentally ill. ..whole new boat People.
Is Congress just invisible? Do they not give a shit that once again he does an end around?
Gitgo will be closed and the land handed back…watch it.

So basically, there’s nothing to see here, folks. Just move along. Its just one more group of limo-libs trying to throw Hillary under the bus again, and put Wiggy into the driver’s seat. Big Whoop. We’ve seen it and heard it all before.

—
Oh yah, even the Republican’s will vote for Almost a Drop….what the Hell are they smoking? Hillary supporters won’t even vote for her.

It’s like the Kooks are on Jim Jone’s plantation, handing out kool-aid and dancing one last time in the flowers.

The likely candidacy of John Ellis Bush (or J.E.B. to the great unwashed) has provoked fits of hysterical excitement across America reminiscent of a Superbowl victory. His family name is the gold standard of American Politics. His charisma and sex appeal are second to none. The only possible comparison is to the Pillsbury doughboy.

Moreover, it will have a clarifying effect on the Republican primary. First, it helps Hillary–because Clinton fatigue will be supplanted by Bush fatigue. Second, it helps Cruz because Bush is a scion of Wall Street and insider collusion which Ted seeks to reform. Third, it will stop the fat man’s money making campaign dead in its tracks. Fourth, it will put Romney in a position where he cannot shuck and jive: he must make a go-or no go decision.

I find it hilarious that J.E.B. would visit Capitol Hill and hold a seance with mad man McCain to find out how he can win the nomination without the support of the base. That is perhaps the only subject which McCain can be counted as an expert on.
————-

Chris Christie’s campaign may now be over before it started. It’s not clear that there’s room in the race for two “truth-telling” establishment figures who have positioned themselves as guys with access to the donor class who aren’t afraid to go against the base.

Jeb’s candidacy should end any doubts about whether or not the mess on the George Washington Bridge wounded Christie. I suspect that minus that incident, Republican donors would be solidly with Christie, and Jeb would have stayed away from the race.

(By the by, here’s a reasonably persuasive appraisal of Christie’s liabilities irrespective of Bush. And it doesn’t even mention the collapse of Atlantic City, which could be a big problem for Christie if his opponents were to wield it correctly.)

* Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are, to a degree, strengthened by a Bush candidacy. I suspect that, given the choice of running against Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney as the champion of the establishment, they would prefer Jeb. He’s at odds with the base on both immigration and Common Core, and his dynastic legacy could, in theory, be used against him with more independent-minded primary voters.

* The big question is whether Jeb’s network in Florida and connection to the national moneymen are sufficiently overwhelming to deny Marco Rubio the cash he’d need to make a credible run. Rubio’s only significant liability in the primary was his position on the Gang of 8 immigration bill. Obama’s executive amnesty actually helps Rubio in that it gives him a foil in immigration discussions and allows him to re-position himself in light of this big reshuffling of the deck.

* Just kidding: The really big question is what happens now with Romney.

When Republicans consoled themselves after 2012, one of their most soothing balms was a belief that, however bad President Obama’s reelection was, at least the GOP would finally turn the book on the Bush and Romney years come 2016. The party was going to move into the future with someone new. Maybe it would be Marco Rubio or Chris Christie or Bobby Jindal. Maybe Rand Paul. Maybe Scott Walker. Maybe even Mike Pence. Or somebody else entirely.

Now maybe this new future wouldn’t be very good either. But at least it would be different. At least it would be a turning of the page. At least the party would finally move on from three very bad presidential cycles dominated by Bush and Romney. At least . . .

Oh.

Yet if the idea of either a Bush III or a Romney 3.0 campaign was depressing, the prospect of a campaign with both of them is fantastic. And it is, after all, Christmas. So let’s think about something more cheerful: A campaign pitting Bush III against Romney 3.0!

This joust carries with it so much potential for establishment catastrophe that it calls to mind the epic ship collision in Speed 2.

HRC clearly isn’t listening to Admin here about making herself scarce. Everytime she makes a public comment, she ties herself to His Majesty and gives her enemies more ammo to use against her during the campaign in 2016.

The only question is, can he beat Hillary Clinton in the Democrat primaries?

Boy, John Ellis Bush really knows how to throw a wet blanket on the holiday season.

He’s forming an “exploratory committee,” and has anyone ever “explored” running for president and then decided not to?

Yes, Jeb is being “urged” to run. By his father and his brother. The former Florida governor has already lost 15 pounds so you know he’s serious.

He’s a RINO’s RINO, a guy who in April said of illegal aliens: “Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love.”

An act of love. Which was why the joke yesterday was, Jeb is throwing his sombrero into the ring.

He tweeted out some nonsense about how he’d been thinking about running for president over Thanksgiving when he got together with his family and “we shared good food and watched a lot of football.”

What a red-blooded American he-man Jeb is. He watches football — lots of it.

So apparently the Bush machine had a big meeting to ponder whether they could regain the White House, and at the end they all began chanting:

“Si se puede!”

The plan is to Herman Cain-ize Ben Carson and Rick Santorum-ize Ted Cruz.

The Bush machine has been planting stories in the moonbat media for weeks now.

The New York Times, the “fake but accurate” paper, ran a piece on how Jeb had consulted with John McCain about how to vanquish the evil Tea Party — “quietly visited” McCain was the exact quote.

The visit was so quiet it ended up on the front page.

Then there was some guy who wrote a piece for Politico claiming Jeb is “the family’s true conservative.”

This guy should know, being “an editor on NPR’s Washington desk.” NPR is the gold standard for conservative vetting, right?

In all these stories, a consultant named Mike Murphy is quoted. He’s the second-string Karl Rove.

Murphy was quoted in one story as saying: “We often say, ‘Let Jeb be Jeb.’”

Yeah, let him come out again for Common Core.

Of course the remnants of the hopelessly prevaricating mainstream media — the Times, CBS, Rolling Stone — will dub Jeb the front-runner. They’ll swoon over him, right up to the moment it comes down to just two, Jeb and Hillary (or, God forbid, Granny Warren).

Then the faux-news “journalists” will turn on him like he was, well, like he was John McCain after Barack Obama won the Democrat nomination in 2008.

The game here is to derail anyone to the right of Hillary Clinton. It doesn’t matter if it’s Jeb or Mitt or Cowboys fan Chris Christie, the goal is the same, to continue the “fundamental transformation” of America.

Only a fool listens to political speeches. They are devoid of content, and full of commitments they will never keep. So lets get real for a change, dispense with the bullshit, and tell them spare me the watermelon talk, just SHOW ME YOUR BLUEPRINT.

For months, Hillary Clinton’s allies viewed one Republican as posing a bigger threat to her in a 2016 presidential general election matchup than any other: Jeb Bush. But they believed Bush wouldn’t ultimately take the plunge.

Over the last three weeks, however, it’s become clear to people in Clinton’s extended orbit that Bush is not only likely to run but that he’s taking the stage in unabashedly aggressive fashion.

On one level, the distraction of another big name receiving the 2016 media klieg light treatment was a welcome development for Clinton. But Bush’s decision to plow ahead also highlights Clinton’s comparatively slow walk and relative caution as she approaches the starting line.

It also underscores their vastly different circumstances. Bush needed to send an early signal about his intentions: His party’s primary is shaping up as a crowded parade of sitting and former governors who are approaching donors. Questions persisted about whether Bush wanted to run, but supporters of the former Florida governor say he’s always wanted to; it was just a matter of him and his family reaching a comfort level.

As the prohibitive frontrunner in the Democratic field, Clinton has the luxury of taking more time. But some former advisers to President Barack Obama have been vocal about their concerns that she is risking the same mistake she made in 2008 in creating an aura of an “inevitable” candidacy. Bush’s declaration that he’s prepared to stick to his principles at the risk of offending base voters – to “lose the primary to win the general,” as he put it recently – has further heightened the contrast with Clinton.

While she continues to weigh whether she wants to launch a second campaign, the risk is that voters could see him as authentic — particularly if holds to his “I won’t bend” approach — as private polling shows Clinton still faces questions about whether she is politically calculating.

“What you’re going to get from Jeb is, ‘This is who I am, take it or leave it,’” said Alex Castellanos, a Republican strategist who knows Bush. “And that’s what we say we want in our politicians.”

He predicted that would be a contrast with Clinton, who is buffeted by backers of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the economic populist calling for reining in big banks. Clinton got tangled up during the midterms in an apparent effort to emulate Warren’s populism during a Massachusetts campaign stop.

“We’ve already seen Hillary trying to transform herself into Elizabeth Warren Lite,” Castellanos said. “She is what Republican candidates tried to do last time, which is [practice] finger in the wind, follow the primary voter” politics. [snip]

“This is the way he was when he was governor of Florida,” said former Missisippi Gov. Haley Barbour. “He was very policy-oriented, he was a straight shooter, and he was tolerant of people who disagreed with him, but he didn’t pander to them.”

Bush has shown little of the slash-and-burn instinct toward Hillary Clinton that other Republicans have. He was on hand in Philadelphia as she was presented with an award last year at the National Constitution Center. And his main criticism of her this year came after her fiery remarks at a campaign rally in Massachusetts: “Don’t let anyone tell you that corporations and businesses create jobs.”

In a clear sign of his own growing interest in a campaign, Bush, as he campaigned for Republicans that week, did not name Clinton but referenced her “breathtaking” statement. How hard he will hit Clinton remains to be seen. He frowned on Bill Clinton’s scandal involving Monica Lewinsky, according to people who’ve spoken with him since the former president left office, but unlike other Republicans has not attacked Clinton over it. His father has forged a deep bond with Bill Clinton through their shared worked on international relief efforts.

Bush also faces a tough balancing act in trying to convince voters whose views he shuns to support him.

“I think there’s a very fine line between standing up for what you think is right and poking your finger in every primary voter’s eye, and we’re about to find out how fine that line is,” said Castellanos.

If he does it successfully, “he’s eating up that moderate space” that Clinton also will need in the general election, said former President Obama adviser Stephanie Cutter. However, she noted, no one has been able to avoid being pulled too far to the right in a GOP primary since George W. Bush ran in 2000. [snip]

As for Clinton, several Democratic supporters said Wednesday, one issue is whether she can avoid falling prey to responding to whatever Bush says during any given news cycle and getting dragged into the race sooner than she is ready.

“That’s the worst thing that could happen,” said one Democratic ally. Bush’s emergence has also increased concern among Democrats about the party’s prospects of keeping the White House in the unlikely, but not impossible, scenario that Clinton decides not to run.

There are other questions about how Bush’s move toward a run will effect Clinton. Some have questioned whether she will now speed up her own time frame for deciding, after her allies made clear she was not moving to make her intentions known until next year. Some potential staffers are already being reviewed, according to people familiar with the discussions. But Clinton is not generally diving into the political conversation. She is making statements when she has public appearances and there’s a heavy attention surrounding a specific issue, or if she has a particular point she wants to make.

Several Democrats close to Clinton and some former Obama aides predicted that she will not start speeding up her own efforts. And some argued that Bush has the some problem she does right now.

“Despite the pundit salivation calling for an immediate ideological confrontation between Clinton and Bush, they are, in many ways, in a similar place in their prospective candidacies — months away from that sort of positioning,” said Ben LaBolt, a former Obama campaign adviser.

“Now is instead the time to measure how they align, both with respect to their party base but also the general electorate, gaming out the strategies of the other players likely to enter the field, and reconnecting with their donor and grassroots networks. The popcorn shall be saved for another day.”

Other Democrats argued Clinton and Bush are similar in that many years have passed since they’ve interacted with voters, and neither has a clear, broad rationale for a candidacy.

Several Democrats privately predicated that Bush could blow up on the launch pad, and his allies have insisted he hasn’t definitively decided on a campaign. He has the first few months of 2015 to figure out whether he can be an effective candidate. They expect that Clinton will watch and see how he performs, and appreciate the fact that someone else is now getting as much and maybe more media attention, and criticism, than she is.

In the meantime, the Clinton-allied Media Matters and the Democratic National Committee have been aggressively going after Bush. Those attacks show just how seriously Democrats are taking him.

“To quote his brother, do not misunderestmate Jeb Bush,” said Paul Begala, a former Bill Clinton adviser. “He’s a terrific fundraiser, he was twice elected a governor of the largest swing state — he just brings a lot to the race… he maybe has more assets and more liabilities than anybody in the race.

It does say that she should stay quiet and not be baited into responding to anything Jeb says. Now if only she will extend that sage advice and strategy to not making comments supporting Obama’s actions too.

Bush has shown little of the slash-and-burn instinct toward Hillary Clinton that other Republicans have. He was on hand in Philadelphia as she was presented with an award last year at the National Constitution Center

————
It is the two different sides of Wall Street. There is a definite block of them who will support the Democrat nominee, in this case Hillary, and the opposing block who will support the Republican nominee, who in this case will be either Bush or Romney. Wall Street is passive aggressive. It takes the head off of outsiders, and it resolved conflict between insiders through arbitration, rather than litigation. Bush’s instincts are governed by those customs and usages.

There is no question that Wall Street benefited from Bill’s singing the bill that eliminated Glass Steegel, and they are grateful to him for that. The public did not benefit so much from it however, since it was one of the root causes of the real estate crash of 2008. He and Hillary have collected millions from making speeches before Wall Street audiences, and one or more of the Ready for Hillary skull sessions was held at the offices of Goldman Sachs.

By the same token there can be no doubt the J.E.B. is a scion of Wall Street. That intimate association goes all the way back to the end of the Civil War, and has continued unabated ever since.

Unfortunately, Wall Street is less concerned about the welfare of the people of this nation, than they are with opening new markets. This explains the outreach to former adversaries. The most recent example is Cuba. Hillary has been pushing for this secretly for years and that is why she supports Obama, who is acting on Wall Street instructions.

This is also why Hillary continues to support Obama, and does not keep her mouth shut and let him self destruct.

You could look at what is going on today in one of two ways: you could look at it as a series of counter intuitive acts by a deranged man who hates America. That is what they would like you to believe. The other way to look at it is this is the promise and fulfilment of the end of history mantra, and the notion that ideology is no longer the determining factor because the future of the world belongs to markets. I favor that explanation myself, and find it no less harmful to the American People that the alternative explanation.

Certainly Obola is a deranged man who hates America, especially now that he has been voted out (despite the results of the propagandized presidential election). 763 days until his last day in office Jan. 20, 2017. Who worships him now besides criminals and psychos (and Kooks)?

The ideological gift he leaves behind for the world to see is what the world would be like if America has never been born.

Obama is to America as Clarence the Angel was to George Bailey in “It’s a Wonderful Life.” Barack Obama is showing the world what it would look like had America never been born. As this friend later wrote, “Unsurprisingly, Bedford Falls is now Pottersville, and it’s a terrible place. Unfortunately we do not get to revert to the tolerable if modest status quo at the end of the lesson: George Bailey will eventually have to shell the town and retake it street by street from Old Man Potter’s Spetsnaz.”http://www.redstate.com/2014/09/04/the-president-is-not-checked-out/

Obama is not to be underestimated as he has changed the narrative of the midterm defeats with amnesty, race baiting, and now foreign relations with Cuba. Like it or not, for a loser he is driving the news cycle while the republicans in leadership positions seem to be waiting it out. The coordination of race protests, immigration “reform” and legitimizing countries like Iran and Cuba while throwing Israel under the bus have been in the works for some time imo. Losing the midterms actually gave Obama the freedom to do more of what he wants to do….

WashPo lit into Obama in an editorial this morning about his actions in re. Cuba. The same objections would apply to his earlier initiatives toward Russia and Iran. The common complaint isObama gave away the store and gets nothing back in return. In the process, we shored up failing dictatorships at the very time they were poised to fall.

The motive for his actions has nothing to do with America’s strategic interests. On the contrary, the entire game here is to open these countries up to American business interests. In the case of Iran, General Electric, Comcast and Costco want access to that market. They are all high dollar Obama supporters. In the case of Cuba, the hotel industry, gambling industry, resort industry want access. They too are large Obama donors. In politics he who pays the piper calls the tune.

In sum, Wall Street controls our foreign policy and they exercise that power to pursue profit, regardless of the risks this poses to the American People. Sometimes we become unwitting tools to this, as you will see in the following quotes by General Smedley Butler, who won the Medal of Honor during Boxer Rebellion and went on to become Commandant of the Marine Corps:

1. War is a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of War is a racket. It is the only one international in scope. The profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

2. I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

3. I served in all commissioned ranks from a second Lieutenant to a Major General. And during that time, I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street, and for the bankers. I was a racketeer for capitalism.
My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups.

4. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else.

Harriman you will recall was the godfather of the modern Democrat Party, and his wife, Pamela Digbey Harriman, aka the great horizontal was the inspiration for that song from Call Me Madam—The Hostess With The Mostest.

…. There is no question that Wall Street benefited from Bill’s signing the bill that eliminated Glass Steagel… The public did not benefit so much from it however, since it was one of the root causes of the real estate crash of 2008.

You’re right that Wall Street lobbied for the elimination of Glass Steagel and that it was a raw deal for the country.

Wall Street also lobbied for its reinstatement, though, in the drafting of Dodd-Frank; and the suppression of that provision of Dodd-Frank in the CR Omnibus was the reason Warren had a fit about it. Gotta give her credit for that, and Wall Street too. Whoever tagged that rider on the CR Omnibus should be hanged by the nearest tree.

A constant of political life has been that there is only one “stupid party” in America—the Republican Party. Then one day you get out of bed, look out the window and what do you see? Democrats. The Democrats are turning themselves into the new stupid party of American politics. [snip]

Which brings us to the Draft Elizabeth Warren movement.

Last week more than 300 former Obama staffers signed an open letter urging the famous Harvard Law School professor to run in 2016. Days earlier, two big progressive groups, MoveOn.org and Democracy for America, also pressed the first-term Massachusetts senator to seek the party’s presidential nomination.

The implicit logic of the Draft Warren movement is that after eight years of the Obama presidency, the American people want to move . . . further left.

However intriguing that proposition, the real problem for the political pros behind Draft Warren or even the Ready for Hillary super PAC is that the Democratic left’s high-publicity wing insists on doing stupid things in public that turn off more voters than they turn on. [snip]

Amid the recent, violent anti-police protests (whose political consequences will be real but unmeasurable), Smith College President Kathleen McCartney sent the student body an email titled, “All Lives Matter.” The phrase horrified Smith students. Her words, they said, diminished black lives. They demanded that Ms. McCartney issue a public apology. Which she did. This is a scene straight out of the public shamings of officials in China under Mao Zedong.

Last summer’s biggest campus story was the startling, serial banishments of commencement speakers for various political offenses as imagined by small factions of left-wing students.

In the midterm elections, support for Democrats among young voters, millennials, dropped six points.

Another sign of public fatigue for Democrats was the spectacle of Colorado Senate candidate Mark Udall’s “war on women” strategy becoming an object of mockery, not from the right, but everyone else. A party turns stupid when it keeps pushing obsessions that push people away.

The Obama administration’s resolute opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline has cost the party the support of the Laborers International Union’s 500,000 members, plus their families and relatives. Would a smart party do that?

It won’t stop. One of Elizabeth Warren’s key constituencies—the Occupy Everything movement on campuses and in the streets—is wholly alienated from the private sector, like much of this new generation’s Democrats. A lot of men and women who go to work daily in the private sector surely have decided that they are the object of these attacks.

Sen. Warren’s fiery “middle-class” speeches are normal politics. But the activist left’s political compulsions are producing a lot of stuff that isn’t close to normal. It is craziness at the political margins, and like weeds, it is occupying the party’s public personality.

The left often says its ideas should move people out of their “comfort zone.” Whatever the ancient attractions of radical populism, discomfited people abandon the party of discomfort. In November’s election, 64% of white males voted Republican.

The GOP showed in the midterms that it had rescued itself with voters from terminal stupidity. The Democrats? I’d rate the chances of the party reining in its extremes at below zero.

Many traditional liberals still consider themselves JFK or Clinton Democrats. But that party is gone. The party’s presumptive nominee, Hillary Clinton, is going to be transformed into a Warren Democrat, the party’s future.

Some Democrats may console themselves in thinking the Republicans will always be stupid. Now, though, there’s dumb, and dumber.

We call them Kooks. They have seized the party. Traditional liberals are aghast. “Many traditional liberals still consider themselves JFK or Clinton Democrats.”

The name cromubus is accurate. Bills offered up by congress rarely do that. Case in point? The Affordable Care Act. In this particular bill we see crony capitalism on steroids. The only question is whether this accurate description of this toxic piece of shit was the handiwork of an ironic deity, or simply a Freudian slip, or a subtle signal to Wall Street by McConnell that the irrational exuberance of the Republican base over Obamacare, and Amnesty for invaders/squatters is just a passing fancy and come January 21 it will be business as usual.

We have had several tells since the election, but for my money the most telling and predictive one is the withdrawal of Jeff Sessions as head of the Senate Budget Committee chairmanship in favor of Mike Enzi who although he appears to be a true conservative he is controllable by McConnell, who is anything but conservative. In the limited dealings I had with McConnell I found him to be someone who was interested only in money, and the price for his help was to throw him a fundraiser, and they put the arm on me to host the thing at my house, which I did.

If Sessions had maintained the chairmanship of that committee then he would have resisted efforts by McConnell to fund the agency primarily responsible for carrying out the illegal amnesty order. Therefore, the fact that he withdrew his nomination, to avoid the embarrassment of a fight he could not win, tells you all you need to know about the intentions of McConnell vis a vis illegal immigration. He is for it, and don’t believe his rhetoric.

The the reason Mitch is for illegal immigration is because the lobbyist staffer business network he runs benefits from it. This is not a series of independent enterprises. It is a single employer with an interchange of personnel, common ownership and control, which is the labor law definition.

The beauty of Cromnibus is it lays bare the conflict I have been talking about–which the left and the far right both see. The reality of Wall Street control. And the steady erosion of the civil rights and standard of living of the middle class, and the emergence of a have and have not nation, a diminished character on the world stage, a shadow of its former self.

The problem with the left is the cure they propose is worse than the disease—a Kafkaesque bureaucracy contemptuous of the public it supposedly serves. I can think of no better example than the IRS.

The single minded objective of Wall Street at this point is to abandon positions which we took up during the Cold War and its immediate aftermath. During the Clinton years, Soros was orchestrating this effort and used his worldwide network in conjunction with the CIA to topple Shervernaze in Georgia (the Rose Revolution), The Ukraine leaders (The Orange Revolution) and the failed Cedars Revolution in Lebanon–those names were given to them by CIA. Furthermore, the tactic deployed against those nations where identical to those used to launch the Obama candidacy, and to blind the American People to its failures. When Wall Street gains access to a closed market whether through Soros intrigue or Obama “diplomacy” the result is always the same. More crony capitalism. Yes, Wall Street has been a controlling factor in our foreign policy since the American Civil War, and in some respects because of it–Britain after all was funding the old Confederacy. But what has happened in the past 50 years is America has ceased to be a republic, has become a national security state, Wall Street has gone global in the endless search for new markets and cheap labor. Consequently, their interests coincide no longer with those of the American People. Furthermore, the internet has given Wall Street de facto control over the population. The words of General Butler are worth remembering, because the same families who benefited from the Banana Wars are still in charge.

The carnage left behind from this “transformation”, i.e. 92 million Americans of working age not working big media will never talk about. Instead, they speak only of an unemployment rate which neglects to count 90 % of the unemployed, and when employers add a couple hundred jobs and call it a recovery, they fail to mention that that is de minimus compared to 92 million. Big media is an agent of Wall Street, and it is no coincidence that in Sharyl’s book she identifies with specificity a cabal of big media executives in New York who make sure that the stories reported on big media fit a pre existing narrative advanced through all the big media outlets in locked step, which often is neither complete, nor frankly even truthful. It is a narrative they want the population to swallow and believe, because it advances the interests of Wall Street. It is a form of thought control.

———
If I see Jim Sinegal, I will ask him. What I will tell you is that Obama stays at Jim’s home whenever he is in Seattle, and he holds fundraisers for him there. Obama is a cypher. He has no coherent philosophy. He has no loyalty to the American People. He is a company man for Wall Street. That is where it starts stops and ends. The left and the center got hoodwinked.

The other thing that makes Obama useful to Wall Street is this: like General Franco he was chosen by the elites because he was a man willing to fire on his own people–which is exactly what Obama has done.

dot48
December 19, 2014 at 12:34 pm
————-
The average American hasn’t the time, the background or the inclination to dig beyond the sound bites to figure this thing out. Furthermore, so much of it is either hearsay, self serving bullshit, or pure speculation. You have to have solid connections to insiders in the process to understand what is happening. And even then, its a crap shoot. Beyond that, the average American relies on big media to shoot straight and provide a balanced perspective so the voter know whom he or she wants to vote for. Big media has clearly failed that test–in spades. You do not need your bullshit detector to tell you this. It is right there in Sharyl’s book Stonewalled. The corruption of big media coupled with the influx of unlimited amounts of money determined to buy the political system and all that goes with it, i.e. the courts is the central problem. To reform the process would require modest contribution caps and term limits. The other option is a third party. And for goddsake tune out big media. Here is the bottom line: Wall Streets interests no longer align with those of the American People, and Wall Street controls the political process, therefore we need to change the game. But who’s to do it?

Hi folks. Long time reader and lurker and i haven’t commented here in years. Was a big, huge Hillary supporter but have been very disappointed that she continues to support the bozo in the WH. I don’t know who I’m going to vote for but I don’t want dynasties so I know it won’t be Bushy3.

Was over at Eileen McGann’s The Hillary Daily site and it was linked to a NY Slimes article entitled “Hillary Trying to Avoid 2008 Mistakes in 2016.” I didn’t read the article but wanted to look over the reader’s comments. I have to say I was surprised the the vitriol against Hillary. Those New Yorkers and people on the East Coast (I live in Washington state) are really tearing Hillary apart and are pushing very hard for a Warren presidency. I would rather not vote than vote for Fauxahontas.

In my opinion, Hillary didn’t make any mistakes in 2008. The DNC penalized Michigan and Florida and stole those delegates from Hillary because in their oh so great wisdom (NOT) wanted to see Obama as “the one.” What a huge mistake!

The last time I voted for a Democrat was in the presidential primary in 2008. I don’t see that streak changing.

The last time I voted for a Republican was in the GE of 2012. It’s the beginning of a streak that I don’t see ending in my lifetime. For example, if its Shrub3 versus HRC in 2016, I’m back to my old ways: a vote for the Democrat. In that perspective, would you say:

I will not vote for Wigwam woman in my lifetime. Not gonna happen. She is just as stupid and dishonest as Baracko Obola.

I wouldn’t vote for Wigwam for president because I don’t think she’s at all qualified for the job. I’d rather vote for Shrub3.

But it’s not because I think she’s stupid or dishonest. On the contrary, I think she’s both intelligent and honest. It’s just that those qualities are insufficient for taking on a major executive job and dealing with a recalcitrant Congress.

what a freaking joke…O says to Sony ‘You should have called me’…as if, his peeps were not talking to Sony…along with the FBI…(is this another example of O just finding out about this dangerous threat to the American way of life and freedom of expression because he was distracted and busy surprising Deval on his radio show)

translation…he has Sharpton out there trying to turn this into another ‘race’ issue over email banter

instead of protecting a major corporation that employs many, many people (I was one of them in LA) O brushes it off as ‘these things are going to happen’ and deploys Sharpton to take Pascal to task and her knees…

I say Wigwam is intelligent but crazy which limits how functionally intelligent and honest she can be. She will be as honest as she can and still obtain the power that she seeks. Her best bet is to brand herself as a Wallstreet reformer and make herself useful to the Clinton Campaign/Administration. Maybe do some real financial reform. She could end up more powerful than any POTUS.

I was pleased to see that President Obama announced today that there would be a public screening of The Interview at the White House on Christmas day. It took guts to stand up to the cyber bullies, whoever they are, who have terrorized the cry babies in Hollywood and sown fear among the rancid celebrities of the preening class. Many commentators on my side of the aisle were surprised at Obama’s forthright condemnation of this brazen act of cyber terrorism and his new-found resolve to stand up to America’s enemies. I was pleased, too, to see that he has replaced Susan Rice with John Bolton as National Security advisor and is setting up a cyber defense task force headed by General Michael Hayden, former head of the CIA and the NSA. It has taken a while, but at last Barack Obama seems to understand the gravity of the many threats America faces on the international front and I am pleased that he has been so candid about putting American interests first.

Just kidding, of course. There will be no public screening of The Interview at the White House on Christmas, and if there were, you can bet last devalued dollar that neither John Bolton nor General Hayden would have received a ticket.

No, the real question people should be asking themselves is this: Now that the President is seeking to “normalize” relations with the Communist hell hole of Cuba, is there any totalitarian enemy of the United States that he has not sought to cozy up to?

Russia? check. Hillary hit the reset button years ago, remember?

Iran? absolutely: what more could Obama do to assure that Iran becomes a nuclear power?

China? Obama made a special trip there to agree that the United States to hamstring its economy by adopting emissions standards that China wouldn’t have to adopt for decades.

And on it goes. Someone told me last night that Obama was hoping to normalize relations with the Taliban, but (as far as I know) that turns out to be an unfair rumor. He is only hoping to normalize relations with the PLO while at the same time punish Israel, which has the temerity to make everyone else in the Middle East look bad by being the region’s one liberal democracy and, moreover, by being more technologically innovative than any of its neighbors.

But here’s a question I really cannot answer: how far can Obama go before he gets some real pushback? Yesterday it was Cuba. (When are you going to issue Cuba’s “torture report,” Senator Feinstein?) A few days ago we discovered that Obama invented a new word for “ukase:” it’s “memoranda.” “President Obama,” USA Today reported, “has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders.” Who knew? But wait, isn’t “unilateral action” exactly the sort of thing the Constitution was designed to impede? Well, yes, but we should know by now how much Obama regards the Constitution as a check on his power.

Still, it would be good to know how far the American people are willing to let Obama go. We know that establishment time-servers like John (you-can-do-any-thing-you-like-Obama-and-I’ll-only-pretend-to-object) Boehner are too deeply implicated in the status quo to offer any serious push back. What about the rest of our elected officials? The longer they’ve been in Congress, the more securely are their lips sewn to the teat of public largess and bureaucratic privilege. It was just this eventuality that folks like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton sought to prevent, but we’ve had more than two hundred years of lawyerly hermeneutical ingenuity chip, chip, chipping away at Constitutional safeguards to rely on those fusty old ideas of checks and balances and those “auxiliary precautions” that Madison spoke of in Federalist 51. (“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men,” Madison wrote, “the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” How are we doing on that score?)

It’s not every day that you get to have a ringside seat at the birth of despotism. The entertainment value is likely to be quite high, though I predict the story will not have a happy ending.

I just sense that Warren focuses too narrowly on a few issues. The issues are important, but there’s a lot more to being president than trying to punish Wall Street or worrying about income inequality; and even on those issues she doesn’t seem to have any specific suggestions to make.

But I don’t see where the dishonesty is. And as far as intelligence goes, being not so smart myself, maybe my standards aren’t high enough….

See my comment above your last comment on a person’s character. Someone that lies about their ethnicity to gain favor for being a slain minority in the US, to attempt to show she is not just a white citizen…is a major character flaw, dishonest, greedy and sees herself as smarter than the people and institutions she suppository represents. She did this at Harvard to garner sympathy, favors and recognition.

And as far as intelligence goes, being not so smart myself, maybe my standards aren’t high enough….

—-
You and Wbb have mentioned ‘intelligence’ from Obama and Wigwam…maybe because they went to Harvard?

Think about this, if money was no problem and you were able to spend as many years as necessary to take two years of graduate classes, and then write a thesis paper that was accepted…couldn’t most of college grads in the US be able to earn a Ph. D.? Would you then say that everyone that has a Ph. D. is smart? No.

George W Shrub, also whet to an ivy league school, do you think he is smart?

Obama is BRILLIANT according to big media. An intelligent man in an intelligent house in an intelligent city according to Eugene Robertson of WashPo–a black man. The smartest man to every occupy the White House according to our beloved Presidential historian Michael Bechloss–a guilt ridden member of the untouchable Washington elites. Such high accolades from such distinguished people.

Only two questions:

1. first, if the big media beloved messiah is as smart as they say he is it, why is it that our enemies keep running the table on him? Because they have figured out that he is a coward, and his strong suit is appeasement.

2. second, why is it that World Chess champion Gary Kasparov, a brilliant man in his own right, fails to appreciate brilliance which big media has been proclaiming about him for nearly a decade? More specifically, what does he see which they do not? And even more specifically, why pray tell does he tell us that Obama is weak?